Quote:
Doesn't this cross the line when the actual newspaper is the cause of something like this?
Ask Bob Novak.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- This is what Illinois Republicans are down to
This is what Illinois Republicans are down toFollow
Ask Bob Novak.
Gee...ya know...I'd think you'd be glad that we have an organization looking out for us. Since you or I don't have the money, time, or resources to investigate these things, isn't it good that newspapers do it? No one is stopping any right-wing organization from doing the same thing.
Once again, as I've stated before, questioning the government is good for America. Skepticism of the government is good for America. Dissent is good for America. Investigating the government is good for America.
Quote:
seems to me the paper would lose all credability and objectivity.
Again, the blame here solely falls on Ryan and the Republicans. He sealed the records, he refused to show them even within his own party and he lied about it. Add to that a party demographic trained to believe that everyone's sex life is their business and a public intrigued by Hull's unsealed court records, and Ryan was screwed from the start. Blaming the Democrats, the Tribune or anyone else is like blaming your sister for ratting you out when your mom asks who ate all the cookies.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Tricky wrote
Gee...ya know...I'd think you'd be glad that we have an organization looking out for us. Since you or I don't have the money, time, or resources to investigate these things, isn't it good that newspapers do it? No one is stopping any right-wing organization from doing the same thing.
Actually when people tell me they're looking after me that's when I get really worried. It's the governments responsibility to protect the consumer from any business ******** over the public not the newspapers. They're supposed to report the stories not create them.
Jophy wrote
What if the records said that Jack Ryan had forced sex upon his wife? Or that he had somehow abused his son? Or that he used to mock and belittle his wife due to her ethnic background (whatever it may be)? Would you think that was something the voters should know about? Would it have been wrong for the Tribune to expose him as an accused rapist?
What if includes a broad range of things, of which if he is convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes that's where the legal system comes in and is supposed to punish him not the newspaper.
When republicans do it on talk radio etc... it is regarded highly as commentary on a particular person or event. Large newspapers who are proporting to be unbiased should not be engaged in this kind of speculation, but so it goes.
Varus
Edited, Mon Jul 12 15:45:23 2004 by varrussword
Quote:
Gee...ya know...I'd think you'd be glad that we have an organization looking out for us. Since you or I don't have the money, time, or resources to investigate these things, isn't it good that newspapers do it? No one is stopping any right-wing organization from doing the same thing.
Actually when people tell me they're looking after me that's when I get really worried. It's the governments responsibility to protect the consumer from any business ******** over the public not the newspapers. They're supposed to report the stories not create them.
Jophy wrote
Quote:
What if the records said that Jack Ryan had forced sex upon his wife? Or that he had somehow abused his son? Or that he used to mock and belittle his wife due to her ethnic background (whatever it may be)? Would you think that was something the voters should know about? Would it have been wrong for the Tribune to expose him as an accused rapist?
What if includes a broad range of things, of which if he is convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes that's where the legal system comes in and is supposed to punish him not the newspaper.
When republicans do it on talk radio etc... it is regarded highly as commentary on a particular person or event. Large newspapers who are proporting to be unbiased should not be engaged in this kind of speculation, but so it goes.
Varus
Edited, Mon Jul 12 15:45:23 2004 by varrussword
Why do I even bother replying to Varus anymore? 
The newspaper is not punishing him. Where did you get that lamebrained idea? The newspaper is exposing the truth. Say what you will about their liberal slant of the truth, but by no means are they punishing him.
And what story did they create? The story was already there. The simple matter is that a man running for public office had some of his formerly public records sealed. And it is entirely prudent to investigate the past of anyone running for office. The newspaper didn't create the story, Jack Ryan did. Don't shoot the messenger.
Actually when people tell me they're looking after me that's when I get really worried. It's the governments responsibility to protect the consumer from any business ******** over the public not the newspapers.
So you have absolute faith that the government is perfect and will protect you no matter what?
Here's an example:
There's a student organization at Northwestern University Law School that investigates the cases of convicts on Illinois' death row. (Well, when we had a death row). Over the past decade or so, they have gotten more than a handful of wrongfully convicted men exonerated. They did so through researching the evidence and use of DNA testing not previously available.
Do you still think that just the government is enough to protect you? And that having independent organizations conduct investigations is something to "worry" about?
Varus wrote:
What if includes a broad range of things, of which if he is convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes that's where the legal system comes in and is supposed to punish him not the newspaper.
The newspaper is not punishing him. Where did you get that lamebrained idea? The newspaper is exposing the truth. Say what you will about their liberal slant of the truth, but by no means are they punishing him.
Varus wrote:
They're supposed to report the stories not create them.
Varus wrote:
Quote:
Gee...ya know...I'd think you'd be glad that we have an organization looking out for us. Since you or I don't have the money, time, or resources to investigate these things, isn't it good that newspapers do it? No one is stopping any right-wing organization from doing the same thing.
Actually when people tell me they're looking after me that's when I get really worried. It's the governments responsibility to protect the consumer from any business ******** over the public not the newspapers.
So you have absolute faith that the government is perfect and will protect you no matter what?
Here's an example:
There's a student organization at Northwestern University Law School that investigates the cases of convicts on Illinois' death row. (Well, when we had a death row). Over the past decade or so, they have gotten more than a handful of wrongfully convicted men exonerated. They did so through researching the evidence and use of DNA testing not previously available.
Do you still think that just the government is enough to protect you? And that having independent organizations conduct investigations is something to "worry" about?
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
seems to me the paper would lose all credability and objectivity.
Except that records like that are sealed specifically because people are allowed to make all sorts of claims in a divorce settlement, which may or may not be true. To take your analogy a step further. What if they'd unsealed the records, and in them his ex-wife *claimed* that he forced her to have sex? Yet, there was no criminal investigation as a result (which there presumably would have been if the judge felt there was merit to the claim). What value does that provide to our political process? I'd argue that none is added. Anyone can be accused of anything. At what point do we destroy someone's career simply because they were accused of something?
It may be "investigative" reporting, but I don't think it's *responsible* reporting at all. Printing allegations of some action, when there's been no crime commmited and plenty of time (and a judge with all the access needed) for a criminal investigation to take place provides zero public value IMO. It's also a pretty cheap tactic. They *know* that the mere information of the accusation will sink someone's career. That's irresponsible.
Quote:
Again, the blame here solely falls on Ryan and the Republicans. He sealed the records, he refused to show them even within his own party and he lied about it. Add to that a party demographic trained to believe that everyone's sex life is their business and a public intrigued by Hull's unsealed court records, and Ryan was screwed from the start. Blaming the Democrats, the Tribune or anyone else is like blaming your sister for ratting you out when your mom asks who ate all the cookies.
Because he *correctly* believed that there was nothing in there that would prevent him from being an effective congressman. Sure. Ryan may have been naive about that, but let's not blame the victim here. And yes. I do blame the Tribune. It's one thing to have your sister rat you out. It's another for a paper to print the story nationwide based solely on one person pointing her finger at you.
You are proceeding from the assumption that the allegations are absolutely true. But we have zero proof that they are. That's why the records were allowed to be sealed in the first place. They contain ugly, unproven allegations that some ignorant overly reactionary people might make assumptions about. It sure seems to me he was absolutely correct to seal those papers, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
of which if he is convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes
One of my examples included verbal abuse. You have a hard time getting the cops to come over and arrest your husband because he's saying you're worthless.
Quote:
Large newspapers who are proporting to be unbiased should not be engaged in this kind of speculation, but so it goes
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
The newspaper is not punishing him. Where did you get that lamebrained idea? The newspaper is exposing the truth. Say what you will about their liberal slant of the truth, but by no means are they punishing him.
Um. Yes they are. They are taking one part of a whole set of divorce papers, and presenting one side of that one part of the whole story. By doing that, they *automatically* take the action out of the context of the divorce.
If they were just trying to accurately portray the person, they could have simply printed up the entire set of divorce papers for the public to read, with no editing and no editorializing. But, if they'd done that, then they know that 99% of the people wouldn't read through the whole thing, and wouldn't find the one "juicy" bit in the papers that they found. But by presenting just that one bit, they present a skewed image of the man.
Look. I'm all for papers investigating into wrongdoing. Things that are criminal behavior, and things that *should* be criminal behavior. However, last I heard, it was never a crime to have your wife accuse of you of bad things during a divorce. And what she's accusing him of isn't a crime even if the allegations are true.
The truth is that the "truth" was not the motivation for writing the story. The Tribune wrote it purely so they could ruin someone's political career. They specifically picked out a bit from the papers and presented it in a way that they *knew* the public would react to negatively. I call that creating the news, not resporting it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
That's why the records were allowed to be sealed in the first place. They contain ugly, unproven allegations that some ignorant overly reactionary people might make assumptions about
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varrussword wrote:
what's the point of pursuing a ruling against past occurences. All that would happen is it would drag all this history into the current race
Considering you are such a rabid republican I wonder if Clinton would roll his eyes at this remark.
doh!
Edited, Mon Jul 12 16:20:31 2004 by GitSlayer
Edited, Mon Jul 12 16:20:31 2004 by GitSlayer
I blame the republicans for this...
Edited, Mon Jul 12 16:21:12 2004 by GitSlayer
Edited, Mon Jul 12 16:21:12 2004 by GitSlayer
I think Jophiel's post 6 posts above explains our side, gbaji.
About the newspaper filtering:
So what? I WANT the newspaper to filter for me. I don't want to read every single word of every press release from the White House. I don't want to hear every bit of discussion on the senate floor. If I did, I'd watch C-Span. I want the news to find the most relevant parts and show me. And I DO think the contents was relevant.
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
of which if he is convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes
Sure. If he actually did. I love how you brush off the fact that there was no criminal action reported to the police. So let me see if I've got this straight: A woman makes allegations during a divorce proceeding that her husband hit her on one occasion. She never filed any legal charges (where she could actually get him arrested), but she feels free to make this statement in a divorce where she can get a bigger settlement outof the deal.
You're right. I have no idea why it would be bad journalism to report that. It's a *divorce*. People say all kinds of things in divorces. It's a judges job to sort it out. It is *not* the job of the media to take selected bits from a divorce and spray it on the front pages of their newpapers.
Quote:
One of my examples included verbal abuse. You have a hard time getting the cops to come over and arrest your husband because he's saying you're worthless.
You also have a hard time proving it. It's also hard to define whether it's a crime to use harsh language either. And again, this is all coming from someone who is actively trying to make a case that she can't continue living with her spouse.
I'm willing to bet that if they relaxed the requirements for divorce, you'd see a lot less accusations of abuse in the papers. It's practically required to show some sort of abusive behavior to prove that the differences are irreconcilable under our currect legal system. Why is it a shocker that we find allegations of abuse in divorce papers? Duh!
Quote:
When everyone is saying Ryan should unseal his records, exactly what bias is being shown? What was the "speculation"? Obviously, a large number of Republicans thought that the contents of those records were very important to their choice of candidates. The Tribune was reporting on something the Republican voting bloc felt was very relevant.
I'd need to see the order of events though. Was it the the Republican leadership insisted on seeing them first, Ryan refused, and the the Trib printed them? Or was it that Ryan just told the leadership that there was nothing bad in them, they dropped the issue, the people (voters) didn't care, but then the Trib decided to drop a fly in the ointment by pushing the issue, causing the Rebublican leadership to push as well since they didn't want to look like they were hiding anything?
I still see the media creating the story here. Whatever.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
If they were just trying to accurately portray the person, they could have simply printed up the entire set of divorce papers for the public to read, with no editing and no editorializing.
(B) The entire records were over 400 pages long. Obviously the Tribune isn't going to publish that. I find it amusing that you cry and bemoan Jack Ryan having less than eight pages made public (more like 3 when you disregard the blacked portions) but you think it'd be better to publish a 400 page book about his divorce.
Quote:
The truth is that the "truth" was not the motivation for writing the story. The Tribune wrote it purely so they could ruin someone's political career.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Sure. If he actually did.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji, just about every source you give is guilty of what you just said.
You are such a fu[i][/i]cking hypocrite.
For the love of BOB, will you take my advice and GFY and Die. I think autoerotic asphyxiation would be appropriate.
You are such a fu[i][/i]cking hypocrite.
For the love of BOB, will you take my advice and GFY and Die. I think autoerotic asphyxiation would be appropriate.
Quote:
Or was it that Ryan just told the leadership that there was nothing bad in them, they dropped the issue, the people (voters) didn't care, but then the Trib decided to drop a fly in the ointment by pushing the issue, causing the Rebublican leadership to push as well since they didn't want to look like they were hiding anything
You're welcome to have your opinion about what happened, but at least try to educate yourself a little about it first.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
You're welcome to have your opinion about what happened, but at least try to educate yourself a little about it first.
I don't why this is so confusing to you, Joph. Let's take a minute and look at the actual events, shall we folks? What did Jerry Ryan do for work? She worked in the entertainment industry and still does. Gee, sounds like to me that she has an intrest in keeping the liberal elite who run that industry happy, now doesn't it?
Now, let's see, who runs the entertainemnt industry exactly? That's right, liberal gay jews. So here you have a woman who's clearly under the controll of liberal gay jews marrying a Republican with ambitions to run for office some day. Cooincidence? I think not. It's so obvious that Jerri Ryan was a sleeper agent for the gay jewish liberal zionist power consipiracy that runs the country. How can you be so naive as to not see that??
The leaders of what I and many other learnered scholars refer to as "Z.O.G." or the Zionist Occupied Government" began to take controll of the entertainment industry and the government shortly after WW2 when they stole Hitler's brain and built a giant machine that allowed the to communicate with it telepathically.
This is where the Japanese come into play. Remember when the Japanese starting buying up all the entertainment companies? IT was because they had the technology to telepathically speak to Hitler's brain.
Look at the facts, Joph! I think it's pretty clear here, folks, that Hitler's brain commanded Jerri Ryan to do the bidding of the gay liberal elite jews in Hollywood and take down an innocent man's political carreer. Stop lying to yourself and wake up to the reality. I'm so tired of seeing you liberals delude yourselves and accept everything fed to you by the mainstream media.
Here's a link that proves everything I've said here is compeltely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government
Remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Hitler's Brain.
Gbaji.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Holy sh[b][/b]it! AHHAHAHAAHAH 
Lol. Ok. That was funny Smash. However, that kind of circumspect logic really fits you more then me. Just happens to go the other way politically in this case...
He did. He admitted to it.
Um. No. He didn't. He said that "they" went to some avant-gard clubs, the "they" weren't comfortable with them.
He did not say: "Yeah. I took here to some sex clubs and tried to talk here into having sex with other people".
He also didn't say: "Yeah. I tricked her into going to a sex club, when I knew she didn't want to, and I kept pressuring her into getting funky at the club until I made her cry".
Odd. Those are the allegations *she* made (actually, her attorney made). Those are the allegations that the Trib published. But that's not what he said, either in the divorce papers, or in response to the allegations once they became public.
It's not the going to the sex clubs that sunk him as a Republican candidate. It's the allegations that he forced/tricked her into going against her wishes that did. And those allegations are 100% one sided (as I guess all allegations are realy).
I'm not really arguing this specifically from the Ryan case perspective. More of a general critique of our culture and our silly fascination with digging into people's private lives and digging up dirt on them. And even worse, building up pure speculation and allegations into real damage to a persons career. It bothers me on many levels that we often put more weight into what someone is accused of, then what they've actually done.
Here's a simple test for you: What do you know about Hull's and Ryan's platforms right now, without looking anything up? Nothing? That's right. Because we are more obsessed with the allegations, then what these two men have done to deserve to be candidates. Admittedly, for those of us who don't live in Illonois, we don't care about the rest, but I'm betting people from that state probably don't know more then the allegations. And that's pretty freaking sad IMO.
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Sure. If he actually did.
Um. No. He didn't. He said that "they" went to some avant-gard clubs, the "they" weren't comfortable with them.
He did not say: "Yeah. I took here to some sex clubs and tried to talk here into having sex with other people".
He also didn't say: "Yeah. I tricked her into going to a sex club, when I knew she didn't want to, and I kept pressuring her into getting funky at the club until I made her cry".
Odd. Those are the allegations *she* made (actually, her attorney made). Those are the allegations that the Trib published. But that's not what he said, either in the divorce papers, or in response to the allegations once they became public.
It's not the going to the sex clubs that sunk him as a Republican candidate. It's the allegations that he forced/tricked her into going against her wishes that did. And those allegations are 100% one sided (as I guess all allegations are realy).
I'm not really arguing this specifically from the Ryan case perspective. More of a general critique of our culture and our silly fascination with digging into people's private lives and digging up dirt on them. And even worse, building up pure speculation and allegations into real damage to a persons career. It bothers me on many levels that we often put more weight into what someone is accused of, then what they've actually done.
Here's a simple test for you: What do you know about Hull's and Ryan's platforms right now, without looking anything up? Nothing? That's right. Because we are more obsessed with the allegations, then what these two men have done to deserve to be candidates. Admittedly, for those of us who don't live in Illonois, we don't care about the rest, but I'm betting people from that state probably don't know more then the allegations. And that's pretty freaking sad IMO.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Sure. If he actually did. I love how you brush off the fact that there was no criminal action reported to the police
Your statement and my response were referencing Blair Hull who did, in fact, admit to having struck his wife. I didn't bother reading past the first sentance of your post when it was obvious you were talking about something else entirely.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Sure. If he actually did. I love how you brush off the fact that there was no criminal action reported to the police
Quote:
It's not the going to the sex clubs that sunk him as a Republican candidate
Quote:
More of a general critique of our culture and our silly fascination with digging into people's private lives and digging up dirt on them
Quote:
What do you know about Hull's and Ryan's platforms right now, without looking anything up? Nothing? That's right.
Just because it's obvious that you don't know squat about what happened doesn't mean everyone is as ignorant.
Heh.. I should have quit reading the post the first time
Edited, Mon Jul 12 21:44:05 2004 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Oops. Yeah. I missed which guy you were taling about.
Ok. So all you're telling me is that Hull did admit to hitting his wife, and Ryan did *not* admit to trying to get his wife to have sex with other people at a sex club. Hmmm... You're kinda making my point for me, but whatever.
Ok. I can see your point about the sex clubs. However, had there not been an issue, it would not have appeared in the divorce. If they'd gone to the clubs, but it hadn't been an issue that caused the divorce, nothing would have come of it. Or. If it never happened at all, and she didn't decide to make it up as a reason for the divorce, it wouldn't have appeared. If they just, as he said it "went to some avant-gard clubs, and they *both* didn't like it" and it was left at that, it's unlikely the issue would have garnered much attention. I can guarantee you, if she hadn't alleged that he tricked her into going to the clubs and tried to talk her into haveing sex with other people, no one would have looked twice at the papers.
That's really the point I'm trying to make here. In a divorce, the spouse suing for divorce has to show some reason to justify it. And "I don't love him anymore" doesn't usually work. So, there's always going to be some dirt in a divorce (unless they both just agree to it without contest). How much of that is real, and how much is exagerrated? That's hard to say. If he's telling the truth in this case, and she's lying, then her lies are purely what's causing the destruction of his political career. If she's telling the truth and he's lying, then we can maybe argue it's justified. The problem is that there is *zero* determination of fact in this case. No trial was done. No Jury found for either of them. No evidence was subitted. Just an allegation by one side in an adversarial process.
I just personally don't think that the mere allegation of wrongdoing should sink someone's career. Since the *only* thing that will appear in a divorce is allegations, I don't see the value of unsealing the documents. It simply shouldn't happen. If the other party of the divorce wants to make a case, he/she can do that, and must then deal with having to justify/prove the claims. Just as in any other situation. If you slander someone, you are liable for the result. However, apparently, if you do the same thing in a divorce, it's perfectly ok, and we can after the fact unseal the divorse to see what things were said. That seems a bit bizarre.
My understanding is that the reason divoce papers can be sealed is because they want an open discourse during the proceedings, and so they allow both sides to say their peace "in private" with the judge, without fear of recrimination, but this can often result in exactly the kind of unwanted allegations sticking around that we've seen. Apparently, it's now ok to unseal them just to dig out dirt though. Whatever.
Ok. So all you're telling me is that Hull did admit to hitting his wife, and Ryan did *not* admit to trying to get his wife to have sex with other people at a sex club. Hmmm... You're kinda making my point for me, but whatever.
Ok. I can see your point about the sex clubs. However, had there not been an issue, it would not have appeared in the divorce. If they'd gone to the clubs, but it hadn't been an issue that caused the divorce, nothing would have come of it. Or. If it never happened at all, and she didn't decide to make it up as a reason for the divorce, it wouldn't have appeared. If they just, as he said it "went to some avant-gard clubs, and they *both* didn't like it" and it was left at that, it's unlikely the issue would have garnered much attention. I can guarantee you, if she hadn't alleged that he tricked her into going to the clubs and tried to talk her into haveing sex with other people, no one would have looked twice at the papers.
That's really the point I'm trying to make here. In a divorce, the spouse suing for divorce has to show some reason to justify it. And "I don't love him anymore" doesn't usually work. So, there's always going to be some dirt in a divorce (unless they both just agree to it without contest). How much of that is real, and how much is exagerrated? That's hard to say. If he's telling the truth in this case, and she's lying, then her lies are purely what's causing the destruction of his political career. If she's telling the truth and he's lying, then we can maybe argue it's justified. The problem is that there is *zero* determination of fact in this case. No trial was done. No Jury found for either of them. No evidence was subitted. Just an allegation by one side in an adversarial process.
I just personally don't think that the mere allegation of wrongdoing should sink someone's career. Since the *only* thing that will appear in a divorce is allegations, I don't see the value of unsealing the documents. It simply shouldn't happen. If the other party of the divorce wants to make a case, he/she can do that, and must then deal with having to justify/prove the claims. Just as in any other situation. If you slander someone, you are liable for the result. However, apparently, if you do the same thing in a divorce, it's perfectly ok, and we can after the fact unseal the divorse to see what things were said. That seems a bit bizarre.
My understanding is that the reason divoce papers can be sealed is because they want an open discourse during the proceedings, and so they allow both sides to say their peace "in private" with the judge, without fear of recrimination, but this can often result in exactly the kind of unwanted allegations sticking around that we've seen. Apparently, it's now ok to unseal them just to dig out dirt though. Whatever.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Just for the general record I think it's relevant to point out that not once, not one single time, has Ryan ever stated that the allegations in question are false.
Not once.
He's been asked about 200 times. Not one "That's false". Not one denial.
Not once.
He's been asked about 200 times. Not one "That's false". Not one denial.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 181
All times are in CST
Gidono, Anonymous Guests (180)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- This is what Illinois Republicans are down to
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC